ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2024
Tuberculosis contact tracing, Angola.
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Effectiveness of Contact Tracing to Reduce Transmission of Infectious Diseases During Epidemic or Pandemic Response: Rapid Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Pooled it
- Strengthening comprehensive tuberculosis care in Angola: a scoping review of strategies, challenges, and potentialities in a high-burden setting.Public health reviews · 2026Review
- Clinical analysis of the onset characteristics and inducing factors of atypical renal tuberculosis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Systematic Screening for Tuberculosis Using Molecular Testing on Stool Samples in Acutely Malnourished Children: A Pilot Implementation Study in a High-Burden Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Country.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the outcomes of a contact-tracing programme to increase the diagnosis of tuberculosis in Cubal, Angola and offer preventive treatment to high-risk groups. Methods: A health centre-based contact-tracing programme was launched in Hospital Nossa Senhora da Paz in March 2015 and we followed the programme until 2022. In that time, staffing and testing varied which we categorized as four periods: medical staff reinforcement, 2015-2017, with a doctor seconded from Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Spain; routine staff, 2017-2021, with no external medical support; community directly observed treatment (DOT), 2018-2019 with community worker support; and enhanced contact tracing, 2021-2022, with funding that allowed free chest radiographs, molecular and gastric aspirate testing. We assessed differences in contacts seen each month, and testing and treatment offered across the four periods. Findings: Overall, the programme evaluated 1978 contacts from 969 index cases. Participation in the programme was low, although it increased significantly during the community DOT period. Only 16.6% (329/1978) of contacts had a chest radiograph. Microbiological confirmation increased to 72.2% (26/36) after including molecular testing, and 10.1% (200/1978) of contacts received treatment for tuberculosis. Of 457 contacts younger than 5 years, 36 (7.9%) received preventive tuberculosis treatment. Half of the contacts were lost to follow-up before a final decision was taken on treatment. Conclusion: Contact tracing increased the diagnosis of tuberculosis although engagement with the programme was low and loss to follow-up was high. Participation increased during community DOT. Community-based screening should be explored to improve participation and diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.